Chris Nolan Won't Make Another Batman Movie, Has No Love For Digital: Produced By Conference

Christopher Nolan made two things extremely clear today as the Produced By Conference got underway on the Sony lot in Culver City. He will definitely not be making a fourth Batman movie, and he believes that digital filmmaking is “devaluing of what we do as filmmakers.” The Dark Knight Rises director said he actually never had a plan for any Batman sequels when he made 2005’s Batman Begins. “We never had a specific trajectory,” Nolan noted. “I wanted to put everything into making one great film, I didn’t want to hold anything back.” And Nolan certainly didn’t hold anything back on his feelings about Hollywood’s “rapid” move to digital moviemaking. Nolan said to the audience, which included Warner Bros‘ Jeff Robinov, that he “didn’t have any interest in being the research department for an electronics company.” Nolan added, “It’s like filmmakers are being encouraged to buy cameras like we are buying iPods.”

Earlier in the session with his producing partner Emma Thomas on stage beside him, the usually reticent Nolan made it very clear that he believes that film is a superior medium for both filmmakers and film lovers. The director specifically chose to illustrate what he feels is the increasingly lackluster experience that filmgoers have in theaters that use digital projectors. “You really are kind of sitting in your living room now watching moves.” Use of digital projection, the director said, “is reducing most theaters to showing TV commercials.”

Nolan was quick to dismiss those who praise the low cost of digital filmmaking as ignoring the hidden costs involved for digital such as the image rendering that’s necessary in post-production. Nolan, who was very specific in describing technical standards and specs, cautioned the crowd that when most people are talking about digital they’re really talking about “video, like television.” With all that, Nolan did not entirely shut the door on shooting in digital himself. “When it is as good as film and makes economic sense, I’d be completely open to it.”

Yeah, Im sure Christopher Nolan has NEVER heard of, touched, or been near a Red Epic… What an obscure camera that major filmmakers never see or use… goodness, if only he could touch a Red Epic, his whole perspective on digital would change…

how are those in terms of cost though? One of his major gripes seems to be not that digital can’t be at film quality but that digital culture encourages cheapest versions which means cheap digital camera which don’t have the quality he looks for.

Are these RED Cameras both great quality AND cheap as or than film?

Brendan • on Jun 9, 2012 9:27 pm

Yes. The Red Epic, ready to shoot sans the lenses, runs about $60k. A 35mm motion picture camera can run 70k to 110k+. But at the moment, there is little competition in the digital realm…your options are pretty much Red and Arri. Sony will soon be a player and Canon will eventually release a quality camera that is not rendered obsolete prior to release. Point being, prices will drop as more companies enter the field.

Robert Not So Wise • on Jun 10, 2012 10:21 am

Your pricing is waaaaaay off. You don’t BUY 35mm cameras, you’d be an idiot to do so, but if you WANT to, you can buy used Arri BL2s and 3s for less than $10,000. With lenses. VisualProducts.com sells used Aarons, Arris and MovieCam packages, all under 20k.

Sony will soooon be a player? Sony (with Panavision) pioneered digital cinema back in 1999-2000. Way before RED or even ARRI were on the scene. A short list of movies produced with Sony digital cameras?? STAR WARS II & III, MIAMI VICE, REEL STEEL, RED TAILS, TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON, COLLATERAL, SIN CITY, TRON: LEGACY, and AVATAR. Not to mention that their newest camera, the Sony F65, is arguably the best digital camera made.

Nolan is right. Film is simply better. Once you have seen something you actually shot in 35 projected in a theater, you would feel the same way. Properly exposed 16/35/65mm film can look better than real life IMO.

Notice whenever you hear someone talk about digital they always talk about “the film look”, or how much digital resembles 35mm film.

Pertwillaby • on Jun 10, 2012 2:52 am

Forget RED Epic. ARRI Alexa is the real deal.

Andrew S • on Jun 9, 2012 11:26 am

Lets see what he says in 3 years when no one will work with him anymore unless he does another Batman movie and shooting on film will be pretty much ancient history

Jesse • on Jun 9, 2012 11:48 am

After making $1 billion for the Dark Knight and Inception being incredibly successful, I don’t think that Nolan has to worry about finding work anymore. It’s been widely reported that Warner Bros. wants to continue working with him a lot.

Vincent Hanna • on Jun 9, 2012 11:55 am

Yes, no one will want to work with Nolan in three years. As if BATMAN movies are all he’s made. Have you seen INCEPTION? THE PRESTIGE? He’s one of the top filmmakers working in HOLLYWOOD. I’d highly doubt he’ll be irrelevant in three years.

How out of touch are you?

cst • on Jun 9, 2012 12:01 pm

Warners has made it pretty clear that they don’t intend to stop making Batman movies (at the very least, they’ll put him front and centre in the planned JUSTICE LEAGUE film). In a few years, the idea of Nolan reclaiming the franchise will be about as unlikely as Tim Burton doing so.

Edmond • on Jun 9, 2012 2:10 pm

He’s producing Superman, which will, presumably have sequels, I believe he’s attached as producer or exec producer (but won’t write or direct) another Batman series in the future (which will exist in a different continuity than this current one) and it wouldn’t shock me if WB tries to attach him to Justice League at some point.
And as mentioned, it’s not like his only successful, or good, films have been Batman. While I wasn’t a fan, Inception was a massive hit. The guy will have no problem making films for years to come.

Alex • on Jun 9, 2012 12:02 pm

My guess is he has other projects in the pipeline.

Federico • on Jun 9, 2012 12:04 pm

Yeah, beacause Nolan needs to do batman movies to be able to work in hollywood… Inception didn’t make 800 million worldwide, and memento and The Prestige were such shitty movies…

Incredulous • on Jun 9, 2012 7:02 pm

At Andrew S – You, sir, are an idiot… Nolan is a member of a very small club of filmmakers. He has Carte Blanche at any studio in town. He will have to retire himself before studios retire him… Please stay off this board numbskull. Thank u.

Anonymous • on Jun 20, 2012 9:39 pm

@Andrew S. LOL. Wake up. You’ve been incepted.

FTCS • on Jun 9, 2012 11:31 am

Appreciate and admire Nolan for his stance. Keep up the good fight.

It is one, however, that will be lost in the long run. The benefits from technology are often good yet this technology leaves a toxic trail in its path.

And, just ask any cinematographer why he works with digital cameras, and far too often, the answer is the producers wanted digital. When I ask why…the answer always the same. “Because they think it is less costly than film…not necessarily better for the shoot..just cheaper.”

So it goes…

LENSMAN • on Jun 9, 2012 12:01 pm

I agree with FTCS. While in conjunction with superb lighting, film can present a certain texture that becomes a part of the story itself. Digital presents a sort of “immediacy” that producers desire…”lemme see what ya shot five minutes ago”…Digital is here to stay as long as it is deemed cost effective and the herd follows the bottom line. I am neither for it or against it…it just is what it is…a sign of the changing times.

Fan • on Jun 9, 2012 11:43 am

Forget cost, there is an argument that digital is better quality. Anyone who grew up pre digital will remember going to see films covered in artefacts, hairs and gunk. Digital prevents any deterioration in quality between the first screening and the ten thousandth. It means the audience will always see the film as intended and not a print that has degraded over time. Digital also offers cost benefits and a great workflow in post. No point trying to fight the future.

Robert Not So Wise • on Jun 9, 2012 12:41 pm

I’ll put this in layman’s terms:

Lots of movies still shoot on film, they’re posted in digital. Look at RUM DIARY, it was shot on 16mm, and then DI’d at 2K. Looks fabulous, without any artifacts WHATSOEVER.

What you’re really talking about is digital projection, which has no wear and tear.

You’re confusing the two methods. You can still shoot film (any format, 16, 35mm, 65mm) and post it digitally and get the cleanest result manageable.

The problem with SHOOTING digitally is it all looks the same. RED has a sodium problem due to the bayer chip pattern.

As a long time visual effects professional, I can second Chris Nolan’s statement that film is a far superior media for live action shooting – from it’s ability to capture extraordinary detail at both ends of the luminosity scale, to its richness in color reproduction. Plus it just looks better.

On most tentpole films where there are a lot of visual effects (perhaps 50% of the movie – or more), the negative is digitally scanned so shots with VFX can be worked on in the computer at the VFX facilities, and later matched with non-VFX shots in the color grading suites, so the whole film has a consistent look. Starting with film, though, makes all the difference in the final product.

My feeling is at this point – once the film exists entirely within the computer – a digital projection isn’t necessarily inferior to a film projection. But I could be swayed…

Nolan seems to be anti-digital color grading and projection, which doesn’t bother me as much, since many theaters project film with old bulbs at less than desirable foot-lamberts, and the audience seeing the film on the 4th weekend is seeing the same clean movie as those who saw it opening night. Plus I think you can get a much better match between VFX shots and Drama shots with digital color grading than you can with the photochemical process, but hey – he’s pretty damn successful with his technique – so it’s hard to argue…

There was an article in LA Weekly a while back that also conflated those two completely separate issues (digital shooting and digital distribution). Freakin’ maddening.

KOF • on Jun 10, 2012 1:08 am

Robert Not So Wise – thanks for clarifying this for a lot of folks here. I’m pretty much well-versed in both mediums so I get the whole debate.

16 and 35 aren’t going anywhere as shooting formats, imo. For sure, the companies that manufacture them will downsize, as the demand will decrease. But, 35mm prints are going to be phased out by the studios by the end of 2013.

Film is now a choice. Digitizing it in 2K in post doesn’t take away from film’s intrinsic look; it actually enhances it better than the old chemical bath.

The least of Nolan’s concerns is the “film/lab” budget line item on his films, so for him it IS a choice. Though he did shoot his first feature “Following” in 16mm b/w on a shoestring.

Machavilli • on Jun 9, 2012 11:45 am

He stands by his decision and I like that he actually spoke his mind on the subject……

Lansky • on Jun 9, 2012 11:54 am

Nolan will be just fine.

I admire filmmakers who care enough about the craft to fight for it. I wish there were more.

Why? Epics have the highest postproduction cost of any camera on the market.

Frazyer • on Jun 10, 2012 9:32 am

Proof

PensivePig • on Jun 10, 2012 10:18 pm

He won’t have any. I’ve worked on several B-Movies that use Epics simply to save money.

Mark • on Jun 9, 2012 12:04 pm

But isn’t it possible that the use of video will hasten the end of the movie business and of theatrical – certainly as we once knew it? His point – a good one I think – is that now everything – including watching a movie – is an extrapolation of the TV viewing experience. What’s ironic is that most often movie audiences reject serious movies that smack of TV. Without the bells and whistles of the franchise pic – Batman included – where would the movie business be? Where it is I guess. On your TV, computer, phone. I would be curious to know if people believe that working in video has had an impact on what constitutes a movie star today. The big movie stars today – originally became stars on film. Compare FILM movie stars to VIDEO movie stars. Do people believe that film makes a difference in this regard? Also : why can’t film be improved upon? Generally speaking though it seems to me that the business of Hollywood, in the long run, is often its own worst enemy. Impulsively react immediately based on this year’s numbers. Theoretically “fix” the reaction at some point later on. In contemporary terms this keeps Wall Street/hedge fund capital spinning…and guessing. All you have to do is look at any metropolitan multiplex where you can bounce from screen to screen to see where it’s already arrived : movies are the new free TV. Like walking down the street during the Great Depression and hearing different radio shows out of different living rooms.

Ben • on Jun 9, 2012 12:50 pm

I think there is sort of a hybridization happening between movies and TV but I think it might ultimately be a good thing. It is my opinion that the success of many film series (LOTR, Harry Potter, Batman, etc.) is because audiences crave on-going plotlines with characters they get to know. Shows like “Lost” and “The Walking Dead” for example have some of the epic qualities of a movie but with each episode, we already know the characters and their backstory. I think the audience craves on-going episodic stories with feature film production value. Screenwriters no longer have to be bound by length — you can tell an on-going story if you have the audience because the technological limitations of distribution are evolving. Think what filmmakers like Tarantino, Oliver Stone, Scorsese, JJ Abrams, Spielberg and Whedon can do under those circumstances.

Classic Liberal • on Jun 9, 2012 7:50 pm

Fine, Ben. Audiences may crave “on-going plotlines with characters they get to know,” but sometimes they want closed-ended stories, too. The STAR WARS saga, for example, works fine as a serial, but CASABLANCA wouldn’t work that way. Neither would BODY HEAT, BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID, THE GREAT ESCAPE or THE SOCIAL NETWORK.

“Stand-alones” provide their own satisfaction, and I just hope both kinds of stories can co-exist in the marketplace or the more “old school” fogies like me will feel screwed.

marklondon • on Jun 10, 2012 2:03 am

I have news for you. If Casablanca came out next weekend, and was a hit, it too would become a series. I’d certainly be intrigued to see a sequel.
I agree, that people now want longer. deeper stories. Ok, I’ve made the commitment to get to know these people, now what happens? “Breaking Bad” is exactly the kind of thing that would have been an indie movie one-off in the 90s, that is far richer as a TV show 20 years later. Almost all the ‘great’ indie films of that time could be TV series if done today. ‘Baghdad Cafe’, ‘Red Rock West’ etc.

On the Nolan front, film aquisition still looks better in 99.9% of cases. Just saw Prometheus – the EPIC wasn’t doing Ridley any favours there.

Bryan • on Jun 22, 2012 5:16 am

There actually was a Casablanca TV show. It was lousy, didn’t work, and nobody wanted to watch it. Because Casablanca was a film, not a TV show idea.

And you’re defining movies only in terms of money-making franchises, which doesn’t account for all of film. The Artost was a pretty big hit and had a very solid critical reception (may have even won some award…), and it’s a one-off movie story. Film is a different medium from TV, and while I personally don’t mind certain gaps being bridged, the film medium will always have something specific and unique to offer from ongoing serials (and that includes sequels which 99% of the time are produced as movies and not under any of the rules of ongoing TV story structure).

Daniel • on Jun 9, 2012 12:18 pm

Nice to have a proper storyteller like Nolan standing up for film. Digital film-making in its current state makes everything look like a cut scene from a video game.

Me • on Jun 10, 2012 9:33 am

not due to the hardware but the editing and director’s vision. Read.

Pardis • on Jun 9, 2012 12:29 pm

I’m a filmmaker who’s only ever shot on film (35 and Super 16), and who intends to continue shooting on film for as long as possible, and, beyond the magical quality of the medium, the reason I’m going to continue is because film is analog. It captures images at a higher resolution than the highest resolution digital cameras in existence. Five, ten, fifteen, twenty years from now, when “HD” is no longer the standard and we’ve migrated to 4K, 8K or higher, we’ll be able to blow film up without any issue, but the 2K and 4K digital films that we have won’t make the transition nearly as smoothly. It’ll be like trying to watch a standard definition broadcast on an HD screen. It looks awful. So, too, will be the case when you try to watch an HD image on an 8K screen. Film, on the other hand, can be blown up to nearly any size (consider theatres), and, at least for the time-being, provides the most longevity.

Also, something needs to be said for how reliable and consistent cameras like the Arri 435 are. They’re workhorses that get the job done, no matter what. There’s value in that. Ask Joss Whedon, who decided against shooting The Avengers in 3D, and having it post-converted, instead, simply because of how awful his experience was with the finicky 3D cameras.

So long live film. Not because of some misplaced sense of loyalty or history, but, rather, because it is, genuinely, the technically superior format for image capture.

Japetto • on Jun 9, 2012 4:14 pm

But remember in the coming years you’ll have digital cameras shooting at 20k and beyond with higher Dynamic Range levels. Imax 65mm clocks out at 18k.

You shouldn’t shoot because it’s “a superior format”, you should use because you prefer it’s look and the way it captures light. The same goes for digital. They’re both gorgeous.

Robert Not So Wise • on Jun 10, 2012 11:38 am

Bingo!

I am a big proponent for shooting film, at least for now. You won’t have upconversion issues for the next 5-10 years… (Girl With The Dragon Tattoo will look like an All In The Family Episode in 10 years on television)

But filmmakers should just shoot with what is the best medium to aesthetically tell the story. Could be Hi8, VHS, Super8, 16mm, whatever… once an audience adjusts for the look of a picture, they (hopefully) become engrossed in the story.

But for now, I defy anyone to shoot digitally and make it look like MCCABE AND MRS MILLER in post.

Can’t be done.

-RnsW

Michael • on Jun 9, 2012 12:35 pm

Digital projection has elevated the quality of presentations for audiences everywhere. 2k doesn’t do justice to a photo chemical capture but hopefully 4k will get closer. Any one see emulsion or base side scratches lately? Any one see a digital presentation burn up on screen? I’m certain watching the Dark Knight Rises on a Sony or Barco projector will look like my Samsung tv at home…

andy • on Jun 9, 2012 12:39 pm

Nolan sounds like Jack Horner

Ben • on Jun 9, 2012 12:40 pm

I have a lot of respect for Nolan as a director and think he should be able to shoot his movies the way he wants. I’ll go see anything he makes. However, I do think there are cases when shooting digital is better but it definitely depends on the project.

Lanny B. • on Jun 9, 2012 1:03 pm

If Nolan were starting out now shooting Memento he would be happy to go digital because of the cost savings. He is lucky he has the flexibility through success to mouth off about things. But younger film makers need digital to be able get things going.

Bob Louise • on Jun 9, 2012 5:19 pm

While I agree that digital is a godsend to young, inexperienced filmmakers, Memento came out in 2000, right at the time when shooting on HD video became a fad. It should also be pointed out that Memento was shot for $5,000,000, and it’s widely acknowledged that on films with budgets over $1,000,000, the cost of shooting film or digital are close enough to be irrelevant.

Also, Memento wasn’t Nolan’s first feature; Following was. Shot in ’97 on 16mm film with a budget of just $6,000. Paranormal Activity was shot on digital and cost twice that.

not one • on Jun 9, 2012 1:05 pm

Finally somebody with some sense. Digital has made all films to look and feel the same. Even an idiot can expose in digital, film shooting required craft and knowledge. To this day digital has created a masterpiece. Unless you think ” Avatar” has any artistry besides its CGI.

Japetto • on Jun 9, 2012 4:17 pm

Gotta disagree. Shooting Digital is like playing Bass – it’s easy to learn but hard to master.

JeremyJ • on Jun 9, 2012 4:39 pm

Zodiac

Jim Jonze • on Jun 11, 2012 12:50 pm

Totally wrong. Modern film is so forgiving in terms of latitude even though digital is more sensitive to low-light. In terms of color correction, a great colorist can poorly lit films look amazing but the same can’t be done with digital. There’s nothing to carve into.

lalilulelo • on Jun 9, 2012 1:20 pm

Film, at the time being, is the medium to beat in technical terms. With that said, when talented people make top quality projects it simply does not matter to me what medium it was captured on. I am going to enjoy it and be genuinely moved regardless. As long as there are a few such people to rise above the ignorant masses entertainment will have value in my heart and mind.

Sam • on Jun 9, 2012 1:29 pm

I like film. It has a certain life of it’s own. Watching digital adds a “squirm” factor to the movie going experience. It’s too sharp. That said, Otto Nemenz is auctioning off the 35mm cameras this week. Birns & Sawyers got rid of theirs at the beginning of the year. On ebay, I’ve seen a 35BL-1 with 2-500ft. mags & 2-1000ft. mags selling for $1000. If Kodak’s restructuring limits their raw stock product to 2 emulsions, and Fuji the same, there will be more post digital work to make up for latitude loss. In possibly 3 years, film projectors will only be able to be found in revival houses.

Now, I work @ a prop house that specializes in old technology. We had a group of high school students come through for a tour. I showed them an upright Movieola and told them that this it how films were put together in the “old days”. One of the students asked me, “what program does it use?”

If film is to survive, I believe it starts with educating the new filmmakers on the rise.

Chris Nolan makes some seriously awesome films. Even if they’re big budget films, he never makes dump popcorn films, he has the character development and plot down to the T no matter what. Wish more film makers were like him.

The Bark • on Jun 9, 2012 2:41 pm

Digital – the high fructose corn syrup of filmmaking.

Reagan Fabry • on Jun 9, 2012 8:59 pm

An excellent analogy. You deserve a pat on the back.

markLouis • on Jun 9, 2012 2:57 pm

If you’re making a movie where Lindsay Lohan is portraying Elizabeth Taylor for Lifetime, does anyone care if you film it on Kodak’s finest stock through the most perfect primes, or using a Canon 5D with a 35-150 zoom?

Fan • on Jun 9, 2012 3:14 pm

And you’ve never heard of a hair in the gate? Or a lab losing a day’s rushes? With digital, you can see what’s wrong on set. You can have a rough assembly at the end of the day to make sure a scene works. You can even apply a rough grade. Sure, there may be technological improvements to be made, but it took over 30 years for film to go from black and white to colour. Even longer if you look at when films started being consistently shot in colour. Digital technology is advancing at a far more rapid pace than film ever did. In another 5 years shooting on film will be almost unheard of. And as for film to digital conversion, there’s such a loss of quality you’ve got to ask yourself what’s the point. The 2K digital projection standard has a pixel count no better than the hi res screen on my laptop. It can’t even do justice to the 5k capability of an Epic let alone the analogue format of film. I love film, but digital is really starting to get there. And when you consider the business and technological drivers, there’s only one outcome – film is dead.

Christopher Robin Meade • on Jun 9, 2012 5:41 pm

So, “Fan” are you for it or against it?

Sam • on Jun 9, 2012 10:54 pm

Film maybe dead. Long live film. Yes, digital streamlines a lot of things. It makes life easier.

Anyone can pick up a DSLR and now shoot a feature with it. This doesn’t make them a filmmaker. As I stated before, education. If the quality is to be kept up, story, visual, acting, education is the key. Otherwise we’ll all just have a bunch of yahoos going around being wannabes.

marklondon • on Jun 10, 2012 2:06 am

Just saw Prometheus in 4K digital projection. I’m a huge RED fan, but that’s a film that would have looked a LOT better in film. It felt very flat, and there were some weird skintones going on in places. EPIC is great generally, but I was slightly shocked at how poor a lot of Prometheus looked.

And Mr. Nolan, you are a genius. But video acquisition gets a lot more cost effective when your film isn’t going to cost a quarter billion dollars anyway.

Corderouge • on Jun 10, 2012 7:14 am

Mate Roger Deakins is a cinematographer and Christopher Nolan is a director. Can’t compare people with different jobs…

And good on Nolan. Sadly I think that eventually he’ll have no choice but to shoot digital, but hopefully by that time digital can surpass film in terms of acquisition.

And when it comes to low budget short films, digital is a godsend, but for feature film, it would be pretty similar in cost. Independent low budget films would shoot 16mm, big budgets would shoot 35mm, and the costs would be the same for digital acquisition for that kind of work. Today, the media section (hard drives, etc) for a feature is no small amount of data…